Xed

brianus said:

Good. It has always annoyed me that macOS switched to 11.0 after 10.15.. not only did it seem totally random, it makes it hard to remember which number follows which (I had to look up what the last 10.x release was). If they had switched to 11.0 after 10.10 that would have made much more sense. 10.8 (8th revision of Mac OS X), 10.9 (9th), 10.10 (10th), 11.0 (11th), 12.0 (12th), etc.

I remember comments like yours when Apple finally more macOS 10.x to macOS 11. I didn't understand the complaints then and I still don't. Would you be so kind as to explain in more detail as to why 11 shouldn't follow 10.

Or...  why a version number can only go to 10. I ask that because based on your statement that after 10.10 it should go to 11.0*, then by your own logic, after 10.10 the version should start at 1.0.0 by moving to the left by one segment left of the period (note: not a decimal place). The format has been very clear with SW for more decades than I've been alive: [major revision].[minor revision].[patch] with the period simply being a divider.

Besides a period as a divider I'm seen firmware that uses a ( - ) dash as a divider but I'm drawing a blank on specific examples at the moment. But those not the only ways to do it, like including a build number, which is often a much larger value. For example, this is the version of Dropbox that I'm using: 225.4.4896.  You can even have letters in the name which makes it clear that these are all just short names to help keep track of different versions of the OS and not some mathematical structure

There's a decent WIkipage on it if you're interested...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning

* While still not making sense, it would frankly maker more sense from a decimal system standpoint if you had written to say that after 10.9 it should go to 11.0), 

cybertopian said:

Should have been version 2026, 26 wil create a century problem. Didn't they learn anything of the millennium bug?

They can always go with hexadecimal for up 256 years without issue. E.g.: iOS 0x1A

SiTime said:

So it’s going to be “iOS 26” and not “iOS 25”? Going to make it less-confusing by naming it one calendar year ahead of the actual year (car model year style)? If so, that’s fine. I’ll adjust. But doing it this way is slightly more-confusing than it needs to be. Naming it based on the actual year would have been… but whatever. Just need to remember that the actual year of release is: OS Number - 1. 

I hadn't picked up on that. Naming it iOS 26 in the year 2025 does seem like a misstep if Apple goes that route.

skippingrock said:

Oh because it makes a difference how? 

Just because Microsoft did it, why does Apple?

this is just Windows 95 thinking. 

No value. 

I see value. There are too many versions at this point that I am not always 100% certain I know which OS number is the latest. I'd like it to be the year it was released for all of their OSes so there's no guesswork involved at all.

ne1 said:

For the love of God, please stop changing the thickness and dimensions of the phone every year. Does Apple no longer have any hardware forethought or long range planning? Are these year-to-year teams not coordinating with each other? Find a thickness and case dimensions that will work for several years and stick to it! 

As Hmlongco stated, people will likely get a new case anyway after years of owning a smartphone. I typically go through 2 to 4 between each iPhone upgrade at this point in a mature market.

But even if that wasn't the case, I'd rather Apple engineer their iPhones around the technology and quality of the device (like features, performance, and durability) instead of trying to play Tetris with components just to make sure it'll all work within a very specific size so that a customer can keep using an old protective case.